Has the global economy become a giant Ponzy scheme?
Posted on: January 29, 2010 - 7:03pm
Offline
Has the global economy become a giant Ponzy scheme?
Simply passing around money long term doesn't work. A society has to produce something and ship it out to bring money in. Are our global leaders merely using ideology and politics to distract humanity from the every day pragmatism our species faces every day?
Fuck religion and politics, the honest person should admit it is about resources and the battle over them. But how do we, as a species maximize benefit and minimize harm without trampling over our fellow humans?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
"Become" ? oh ho no dear lad... "Always been" more accurately
seconded.
It was the reason for a "global economy".
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Yeah, that would be great! Everyone sharing and smiling and being happy and well-fed... But I doubt that's going to happen. Ever. I mean seriously, if we haven't even stopped bombing the shit out of each other by now how the hell are we ever going to the point of sharing things globally? I mean, in my opinion killing each other (as opposed to just fucking talking it out over some goddamn cheese and crackers) should have gone out of style a few thousand years ago at least.
Uuuugh.... calm down, Katie. Go to my happy place...
The credit system has always been the basis of currency, ever since the first cases of "temple capitalism" in Sumerian times (3,000 BCE), and the point has always been to simplyfy trade by not having to always haul the actual goods to the actual marketplace for bartering. The local king of the city-state in questioning would issue "money" that confirmed the actual existence of whatever goods in questioning, so that the merchants could exchange clay tablets (or whatever) that represented the ownership of articles and items so-and-so, which were held by the king as collateral. Pretty much the same idea we are still using when we issue whatever "papers".
What's new is that "the king" - in our time the state - is no longer holding any collateral. The modern money system of "floating currency" is balanced against faith in the possible existence of equity within the society as a whole, which of course can lead to the breakdown of the faith in such currency as is being issued by whatever "king" (or central bank) in questioning, i.e. hyperinflation. (A situation where the supply of "currency" is vastly out of balance with the existence of actual collateral.) This has lead to a situation where the international finance market is more like a casino than a bank.
Today's "investents" are leaning heavily towards "possible future equity" - or a bit of a Schroedinger's Cat type of economy where you cannot know whether the equity actually is there until you try to cash in on the paper you are holding. So you can say it is about passing the hot potato, as any fool with a pocket calculator can figure ot that the money supply stands in no reasonable relation to the equitable collateral within the international market as a whole. I.e. somebody, somewhere, is bound to lose - because it is impossible for any market to sustain an exponential raise in equity over an indefinite amount of time.
So yes, it is indeed a Ponzi scheme - but it wasn't always like that. Somewhere in the early 70's, most western currencies abandoned the system of collateral equity and declared the currency to be indeterminate "legal tender" (which equitable value is supposed to be regulated through a system of interest and inflation by a central banking institution).
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Is, has been, probably will be a Ponzi scheme. As an individual, you can game the system and refuse to play. I know of plenty of people who are surviving on a modified barter system. During the great depression (it was world wide), many people lived on a barter system. My father-in-law's dad owned a garage. He was paid in sides of beef and hogs and produce. My father-in-law says they ate real well during those years.
Collectively, as a society, we are probably stuck with the way things are. Obama has had a lot of (foreseeable) problems getting his agenda moving. (And so would any Republican president with an agenda for "change".) There is a lot of stored inertia in the "ways things are" particularly in the financial markets. To tip it will require a major disaster or two way beyond what we have experienced even recently. I'm not sure I want to live through something like 2012.
(Funniest movie I've seen since Day After Tomorrow. Oh, same director! duh)
I agree with something you said in another thread, Brian. Pure communism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. We really need new economic definitions that describe actual economic models as evidenced in our societies. These definitions are all over 150 years old, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Marx himself wouldn't recognize anything going on in the markets that exist today.
No answers, bub, sorry.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
The problem as I see it is that everyone has a limited scope for what is irresponsible and selfish behaviors. It what other people do or don't do. Everyone has their 'rights' that impose burdens and restrictions on others, but there is no god to dispense these 'rights'.
The socialist tell us the only irresponsible behavior is not paying high taxes and sharing the wealth if you got any. Having large and unplanned families, not developing a needed job skill, etc... are just natural or the fault of the capitalists.
The conservatives have their 'right' to natural resources they can buy up with their wealth and then use these monopolies to buy up even more limited resource. The poor are that way for their lack of responsibility even if they never get assistance to get out their situation.
Everyone has their rights, but few have any responsibilities to pay for this privilege. So a world of so much war, poverty and misery.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
THANK YOU, someone who gets it. I get so fucking tired of people accusing me of hating rich people or wealth. I DONT. I do get pissed at people who stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything is ok because they have what they need and nothing they do affects others.
BTW, I hate the way the word "capitalism" is used. EVERY country in the world "capitalizes" off of something. Some countries do it better than others but they all seek power. In the litteral sense "capitalize" merely means to take advantage of. That doesn't address effectiveness or open market vs closed market.
You cant have a sustainable society where absolute power through the narrowing of money to the few works long term. A party or a dictator CAN and do do this. They exploit "capitalize" off the labor of the citizens and use ideology and politics to keep them in line, but the wealth still goes to the state or the party or the dictator who CAPITALIZES off of this.
In open free markets like the west, the idea, or at least I assert, should not be a free for all where get what you can and screw anyone who cant keep up. That still leads to the same narrow ratio of political power and dictitorial power we see in North Korea and Saudi Arabia.
In America you have TWO parties who are fueled by wealth. WITHOUT the same checks and balances we have on politics, without the anti-trust laws we have in that aspect, money can corrupt just as well, which is what we see more and more. The increasing problem is that the small and middle guy are not being heard and the ratio of the highest paid vs lowest paid is exploding.
Wal Mart should NOT have the same power as an individual voter. A corporation is not an individual human being. It is made up of human beings, but it should not have the monitary power to make it impossible for for the other classes to live.
If someone wants to live in a Manson, I am fine with that. But they shoot themselves in the foot long term when they think that the exploding gap wont hurt them.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I thought we were close to being on the same page.
No, I don't think corps should be viewed as individuals. I think it was done to provide a legal shortcut. Then we didn't have to have two sets of laws - one for people and one for corps. We could call corps individuals and that gave us only one set. But, it hasn't remained that way as corps get more and more special exceptions and tax breaks because it is "cruel hard" in the mean old world for business.
I grew up in a small business. I know how much business owners whine. And whine. And almost always, it is never as bad as they make it out to be. I used to be considered somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan because I truly believe a business is in business to make a profit and they should be able to do so. But I also believe they should not be allowed to take advantage of the communities they rely on for customers and clients. If you are so short sighted you can't realize that your business is dependent on your community, you deserve to be put out of business.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
THANK YOU..........but I get accused falsely of wanting a commie state for suggesting that people have livable wages and affordable health care. If all you do is care about profits and rape the workers to the point where they become indentured slaves, eventually you will screw yourself over.
If someone goes to work at a place where they are treated like a robot, treated like a numbers on a page, they wont care about the quality of work they do. But you ask just about anyone who works for someone who does care, their productivity goes up. Keeping the work force healthy and happy is important to productivity.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
From NPR the other day: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122271669
According to the author, more autonomy on the job is more motivating and more money can actually demotivate. I haven't read his book yet, but it sounds right on. I have repeatedly refused to make my hobbies into my work. The thought of something I now enjoy occasionally instead doing repetitiously all day seven days a week curls my liver.
I remember reading a study where if people are allowed to make personal calls at work, their productivity overall goes up. Why? Because they have taken care of what needs to be done at home and can now focus on their work.
How can it not be more productive to know you and your family will be cared for? To not have to worry about bills, and insurance, and food, and medical costs, and medical problems uncared for? Even if you are single with no one relying on you, it still is true for every individual that if the basics are cared for, they can spend more thought on work.
I don't buy that less tax will give you the same peace of mind. Most of us are not trust fund babies and we don't make enough to cover all contingencies. Given a bad enough accident or illness, your initial medical bills could run in the hundreds of thousands, your continuing medical costs in the tens of thousands per year and you still have to have a place to live and food to eat. We are all of us just one disaster away from being totally reliant on the charity of others. Fewer taxes will not get you enough in savings to make any significant difference.
I am not saying we should all have to sign over 90% of our income. I am also not saying everyone should make the same amount of money. Or everyone should have the same health coverage. None of that works. None of that is reasonable. What I have heard about the health care proposals in the U.S. - all of them - is that some people at the very top will have to pay a little more. Most of us will never make that kind of money.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes - - It would mean I was making more money!
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.